OCTOBER 2 — The Israel-Palestine conflict is not only a political and humanitarian issue but also touches upon the realm of international maritime law.
The interception of humanitarian flotillas heading towards Gaza raises important legal questions.
Although Israel is not a party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), many of its provisions have crystallised into customary international law that binds all states.
Were Israel’s actions consistent with international law, or do they constitute a violation of the principles of navigational rights?
Navigational rights under UNCLOS
UNCLOS 1982 recognises two main forms of navigational rights:
- Innocent passage. Article 17 provides that the ships of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of a coastal state. Articles 18 and 19 clarify that passage is deemed innocent so long as the vessel does not engage in threats, military activities, smuggling or other conduct contrary to international law.
- Freedom of navigation. Article 87 of UNCLOS guarantees that all states enjoy freedom of navigation on the high seas, including within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), without interference by any state.
- In the case of the Gaza flotillas, vessels carrying humanitarian supplies were clearly protected under both principles, namely the right of innocent passage if within the territorial sea, and freedom of navigation if within international waters.
Territorial sea and international waters
The territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of a coastal state, over which the state exercises sovereignty, subject to the right of innocent passage by foreign vessels.
International waters refer to areas beyond the territorial sea, including both the EEZ and the high seas, where the principle of freedom of navigation applies to all states.
In this article, the term “international waters” is used to cover both the EEZ and the high seas.
The state of Palestine and Gaza waters
In principle, the waters off Gaza form part of the territorial sea of Palestine.
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) reaffirmed that the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including Gaza, are “occupied Palestinian territories” and rejected the legality of Israeli settlements.
Furthermore, on 5 February 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided that the Court has territorial jurisdiction over the situation in the State of Palestine (covering Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem).
This decision relates to criminal jurisdiction, not new political recognition, but it affirms the ICC’s jurisdiction over these territories.
As of today, over 155 states have recognised the sovereignty of Palestine, with the most recent recognitions coming from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia on 21 September 2025, followed by France the next day.
These recent developments further strengthen Palestine’s standing in the international community.
Thus, the territorial sea of Gaza falls under the sovereignty of Palestine, not any other state.
The Mavi Marmara Incident (2010)
On 31 May 2010, the Israeli navy attacked the vessel Mavi Marmara, which was carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The assault took place about 70 nautical miles (over 130 km) from the Gaza coast, well into international waters, far beyond Palestine’s territorial sea.
The attack resulted in the deaths of at least nine activists.
Israel’s action was clearly inconsistent with Article 87 of UNCLOS on the freedom of navigation, as the vessel was in international waters.
The 2025 flotilla incident
In October 2025, the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) once again attempted to break Israel’s naval blockade to deliver humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
The flotilla vessels were intercepted by the Israeli navy in international waters, 70 nautical miles from the Gaza coast, including one vessel carrying international activists, among them Greta Thunberg.
Israel justified its actions as the enforcement of a “lawful naval blockade”, while the flotilla organisers insisted they were in international waters and conducting a purely humanitarian mission.
This interception occurred amid an increasingly severe blockade on Gaza throughout 2025.
The United Nations and humanitarian experts warned of famine risks in Gaza, as Israel’s blockade prevented the entry of food, medicine and essential supplies.
The 2025 interception once again demonstrated a blatant violation of international navigational rights.
Conclusion
The interception of Gaza flotillas by Israel clearly violates the freedom of navigation guaranteed under UNCLOS when carried out in international waters.
If such interceptions were to occur within Gaza’s territorial sea, they would likewise violate the principle of innocent passage, which is afforded to all foreign vessels.
Therefore, whether in international waters or within Palestine’s territorial sea, Israel’s actions remain contrary to international law.
The international community must adopt a firmer stance to ensure that humanitarian access to Gaza is respected, and that navigational rights are not continually denied under the pretext of political and military justifications.
* Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli is coordinator of the International Law Unit at the Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM), and a research fellow at the Asian Institute of International Affairs and Diplomacy (AIIAD), Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM).
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
